Yet another call by me.

[Imladris]

The Barrowdowns is an excellent site. Moreover, it is a Tolkien site. It is not a Harry Potter site. Consequantly (as a rabid Harry Potter fan as most of you may have noticed), I don't like it when I see Harry Potter mentioned in a...less than favourable light on a Tolkien board. Examples of this are as follows:

J.K.Rowling, author of the highly acclaimed Harry Potter series, of which I have mentioned before, wrote a great couple of books, a couple of books that has gathered about them a following like few others, and a generation behind...But, the rules and science of Rowling can become redundant, and it is reduced to generic fantasy, no matter who delving or well-written. This is, perhaps, why it is not as appealing to adults as to children, like the Tolkien literary armada. Mumbling funnily stated spells, that, over time, gain meaning in our hearts, may be flashy, and a good memory aid. But, did you feel the same pang in your heart the first time that youthful sorceror uttered the words "Expelliarmus," as when "he [Gandalf] raised his hand and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upward!" (RotK, The Siege of Gondor). I did not, (though I was not exactly 'impressed' by the quality of those books under any circumstance, regardless of what I may have said to the contrary).

First off it's too hard to explain because someone who hasn't read the books won't understand the Istari, and plus it's just annoying. As discussed many times the Istari weren't some fairy Harry Potter karblasto wizards.

This has made me think a lot about magic in Middle Earth. Firstly that it is not a matter to be taken lightly - none of the casual playing around with magic that occurs in, say Harry Potter, also that it is not something that anyone can do .... though this is a clumsy way of putting it but I will elaborate more in relation to my main point.

Well I suppose part of the problem I have in defining magic - is because I don't believe in it - at least not in "Harry Potter" point a wand and 'pouf' type magic. It seems to me that so often what is termed magic is simply a failure to understand the technology. And I really don't believe I have "magical" powers.

*decides to ignore the fact that HP wizards don't just point a wand and poof it happens as this is a Tolkien board.

If that's the definition of Mary Sue
or Gary Lou, the Harry Potter in the
philospher's stone book must be a Gary lou!

Let me use Harry Potter as an example: where in the real world would you find children treating their chemistry lessons or algebra class as something 'special' unless they were real egg-heads? Most real real children I know would would regard their schoolwork, no matter how much they were good at it or how much they like it, as just normal something that has-to-be-done. I would have expected magical people to treat their magic the same way. But in Rowling's world, it seems that even magical people are surprised at their own abilities: they act like muggles who suddenly have power.

My point in all of this is that there are Harry Potter fans, such as myself, on this forum. I do not enjoy seeing a story that I love being blasted just because someone's opinion is different than mine. I honestly do not see how the first example enhanced the argument in any way. You had a different feeling with LotR than HP -- it's a reader's experience, thus should not be included in a Tolkien discussion.

Secondly, we, as Harry Potter fans, cannot really debate our point of view as this is a Tolkien board. Is it okay to illustrate a point using Harry Potter? Yes...it is. But don't bring your own opinion into it.

For example: The Istari are not like the HP wizards.

That is a perfectly fine illustration of comparison. Please, I beg you, do not go blasting HP just because you don't like it and because you think it does not qualify as high myth/literature.

Are you entitled to your opinion? Definitely. Just...don't proclaim it on a board devoted to Tolkien please.

No I do not mean to attack the people I quoted.

Mods/Admins, forgive me if this topic is not appropriate. However, I thought it was a problem that needed to be addressed...

[Rimbaud]

I think the same rules apply in any situation where somebody references a non-Tolkien topic expressing an opinion with which you do not agree. Rather than derail the thread, or start a new one on a non-Tolkien topic, PM the person in question, and carry on your debate there (or rather, take it to email, if necessary).

~Rim

[Sharkû]

Rimbaud's advice is very good.
I have to say I cannot really see the point of this thread. There are many unnecessary things that can be brought into a discussion, and many of these would be detrimental. That does not warrant that a certain non-Tolkien topic should receive any other treatment than the others.

[Imladris]

The point of this thread is to ask people to stop interjecting in their posts/arguments non-Tolkien subjects with a biased slant. I suppose it is a call to keep arguments pure from personal bias.

Use non-Tolkien subjects as examples, but I ask that they please keep it free from personal opinion.

I used Harry Potter as an example because it is the most prominent one, in my opinion.

I really am truly sorry that I started a pointless thread and I humbly as that a mod/admin delete it if it is viewed as such. I mean that in a non-sarcastic way...

[Mithalwen]

Well since I have been quoted twice, I would like to put on record that I am actually a Harry Potter fan - I thought book 5 needed a good edit but I was up at the crack of dawn that 21st June to buy the wretched thing. The point that I was trying to make was that there is a different treatment of magic in the two books - magic is not used to repare houshold items or cook in Tolkien.......

If you regard that as an attack on Harry Potter then that is up to you. I am sure JK will cry all the way to the bank. I love Harry, but as it happens I do think Tolkien is in a different league. I also think that there are greater writers (though perhaps few greater storytellers or creative geniuses) than Tolkien - and I have said that on the downs and survived to tell the tale.

If the books are so good they will stand a little criticism ... if you feel they cannot stand up to criticism.. well go figure...... And if you think what I said is "blasting", then I think that is a distorted view.

It is natural to compare books to other books - I don't see why we should be censored to protect HP............

This will be a very bare board if we are forbidden personal opinions...

[Imladris]

If the books are so good they will stand a little criticism ... if you feel they cannot stand up to criticism.. well go figure......

This is a Tolkien forum...you were comparing Harry Potter to Tolkien on topics that weren't even devoted to it.

Critisize Harry Potter all you want -- I don't care (I've critisized it myself). Don't do it on a Tolkien forum.

I'm not saying, "Don't you dare touch the Harry Potter because it is teh awesomeness!!!!1111!!!" I am saying to keep Harry Potter or whatever else in it's own circles.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

ral to compare books to other books - I don't see why we should be censored to protect HP............

Originally Posted by Me

Is it okay to illustrate a point using Harry Potter? Yes...it is. But don't bring your own opinion into it.

For example: The Istari are not like the HP wizards.

[Sharkû]

Point is this is no place for personal opinions that don't have to do with Tolkien, and that's the whole point. As such, we do reserve the right to 'censor'. If I wasn't making a point, I would delete the two posts before mine here for being off topic.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Imladris

Is it okay to illustrate a point using Harry Potter? Yes...it is. But don't bring your own opinion into it.

For example: The Istari are not like the HP wizards.

I would say that it is hard to make this comparison, for example in commenting on the nature of the Istari, without going on and explaining why you think that they are not like the wizards in Harry Potter. Which would be opinion.

But I think that Imladris has identifed a point here. It is unfair for people to make gratuitous opinion-based criticism of Harry Potter (or other non-Tolkien material) when those who wish to defend it cannot do so without taking the thread further off-topic. And by gratuitous, I mean irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the criticism is relevant, then it should be possible to defend it by reference to the topic. If not then, as Rimbaud suggested, challenge the criticism by PM.

[Lalwendë]

First of all, Imladris does have a fair point, as many Tolkien fans do have a tendency to criticise the Harry Potter books quite vehemently, and I'm not excluding myself from this. I'm not embarrassed to say I enjoy the Harry Potter books and I can't fault the plotlines which keep me turning the pages (and I especially love the Ministry of Magic and the bad guys), but as a long time Tolkien obsessive, I do have a weird relationship with them. This manifests in an urge to be sceptical. I wonder how many other 'Downers do love those books but feel they must somehow criticise just to prove the point that Tolkien is the master. I know this is something I do quite often, although it has mainly been face to face, in duels of words with workmates.

This topic shows though, yet again, how text based discussions can sometimes not come across the way that they were intended; I'm sure we've all written e-mails that have come across in totally the wrong way, and this is a similar thing.

[Bêthberry]

But I think that Imladris has identifed a point here. It is unfair for people to make gratuitous opinion-based criticism of Harry Potter (or other non-Tolkien material) when those who wish to defend it cannot do so without taking the thread further off-topic. And by gratuitous, I mean irrelevant to the topic at hand. If the criticism is relevant, then it should be possible to defend it by reference to the topic. If not then, as Rimbaud suggested, challenge the criticism by PM.

And let me say I think Saucepanman is on to something here. I, too, felt that there was some merit to Imladris's initial point, however polemically she expressed it. (She does love her polemics.)

The BarrowDowns prides itself on the quality of its discussion. That means, I think, fair analysis and comparisons, witty rejoinders and clever reparte. But if or when we resort to, as SpM says, "gratuitous" slams of other authors, whether it be Rowlings or Pullman or some other fantasy writer or modern, we foresake good quality discussion for silly and cheap rabble rousing, name calling in the hopes of making us "Tolkienites" feel smug or superior or some such aura of exclusivity. Ad hominem comments aren't us-- I really don't think that the Downs is about that kind of "put down".

So, yes, as Rim, Sharkey and SpM have all suggested, handle that with a PM or consider how the issue can be addressed in an on-topic manner.

Edit: cross posted with Lalwendë here.

[Mithalwen]

My original posts have been taken out of context. They may have been "casual" illustrations but they were not gratuitous. The thread has been up for about a month. It is very Tolkien... I have never received so much rep. Read it and report if you feel it necessary. As someone else said thius is really not the place... butwhen I am attacked .... I will respond ....and that was an attack.

[mark12_30]

Two points.
One: Quibbles abound; it is the nature of discussion. If you go to Books, you will see innumerable places where someone states their opinion, introducing external facts or figures or sciences or theories or theologies, with personal preference. If lucky they do it politely. If not, one either ignores it or deals with it as Rimbaud has suggested and Sharku has endorsed.

Second point: What do Sharkû, lindil, Mithadan, and Mister Underhill have in common? Answer: longevity, respectability, and reputation that completely transcends "points". They're also all either mods or administrators. I'll leave it at that.

[Amanaduial the archer]

Are you entitled to your opinion? Definitely. Just...don't proclaim it on a board devoted to Tolkien please.

I disagree a little actually, Immy. Not that I am in favour of an all-out flame war against all things Potter, but it does relate to the context. For example, if some topic starts:

Hi, jst sayin tht, like, Harry Potter *drool* wizards are, like, soooo much betta thn the wizards in Lord of the rings,c os they dont actually use, like, proper magic. I mean, lord of the rings wizards don't even use magic.

Now, whilst this topic isn't really worth responding to, for the sake of the example, we must press on: in response to this, I think it would be acceptable to include some opinion of your own about Harry Potter itself - do not engage in a flame war, it does not help things! But then, this is a discussion forum - and discussion is all about exploring different viewpoints. Opinion generally helps, y'know

Oviously, Harry Potter is the other most popular fantasy/'magic' series which has been talked about in the last few years, especially being as the books do seem to have alot which is easy to compare, and as the films came into direct competition with each other: the two are easily comparable, and alot of people seem to have taken the opinion that sides must be taken rather than joining in one big sci-fest of magic (aww, harmony in all the geeky wizarding community (joking!*ducks flying objects*)) This is where the problem comes in: it can easily errupt into a slightly volatile subject from innocent intentions, where with other series it might not. For example, some time ago there was a topic comparing the trials of Frodo the Ring-bearer, and Will, the main character and bearer of the infamous Subtle Knife in Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy. These two characters are really incredibly similar in the responsibilities they have to bear - but it was nowhere near as likely to errupt as, for example, if you compared Frodo's burden with the burden that Harry carries with the scar, his name, and his history. The topics have been discussed so often that they can very rapidly become repetitive to some participators and develop into 'my character's better than yours' flamewars with anti-maturity.

So I think that, no, opinion should be allowed - but keep it related, and don't descend into the murky depths of flame

("fairy Harry Potter karblasto wizards" - genius. I shall be storing that one up for later use )

[Kuruharan]

But if all discussions that mention the work of other authors are banned, that is going to put quite a damper on comparative discussions on the boards.

A lot of what might be considered rarified discussions here have been comparative in nature and have referenced other authors. Such things are necessarily going to involve opinions on the quality of the works

[HerenIstarion]

Good long Tolkien discussion with lots of HP in it

[Evisse the Blue]

I also disagree with your call, Imladris. And this following suggestion seems out of place:

Originally Posted by Imladris

Critisize Harry Potter all you want -- I don't care (I've critisized it myself). Don't do it on a Tolkien forum.

Where else do you want HP criticized? On a HP forum? Certainly not. Where then? Maybe in relation to something it is similar with. This is not bashing and it's not done only to annoy you or other HP fans (which, I am too, btw). This is simply stating an opinion in order to prove a point, most of the times (as I've seen from the examples you provided). Nobody just starts a topic to say: This is why HP sucks and LOTR is way better!
One thing I do have a problem with is when someone brings religion into the discussion - this is when it all goes to hell, if you'll pardon the pun. LOTR+HP+ Religion = pointless thread.

LOL - how ironic. I followed the link that HP provided and found a post of yours, Imladris, (back then you hadn't read HP yet), but that didn't stop you from criticizing it, and I posted once or twice in defence of it. Haha! Excuse me while I have a good laugh - there's so few things that I can laugh about these days...